Apple won a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung last year, and it's now up on appeal. But at this point, that lawsuit covers the previous generation of phones, like Apple's iPhone 4 and Samsung's Galaxy S II. A newer lawsuit over patents, including Apple's search-related patents, was filed in 2012. That case covers newer phones like the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III.

That case is being litigated under the oversight of US District Judge Lucy Koh, the same San Jose judge who presided over last summer's blockbuster trial.

At a hearing yesterday, Koh expressed frustration at both sides' overbroad accusations against each other in the new lawsuit. She insisted that the warring smartphone giants limit their cases to 25 patent claims each, and no more than 25 allegedly infringing products, according to a Reuters report on the hearing.

Koh actually threatened to put the whole case on hold unless the two companies agree to narrow the case. Currently, the new case is scheduled to go to trial in March 2014.

That would be just fine with Samsung, which has actually filed a motion to suspend the lawsuit. Apple is opposing that motion. Koh insisted the case has to get smaller in order to move ahead.

"As this case as it is currently framed, I'm refusing to go forward," Koh said.

While Apple's verdict last year was stunning, post-trial action has softened the blow and generally favored Samsung. Apple failed to get an injunction kicking Samsung products off the market, or any extra damages.

Perhaps judges are beginning to realise that if every patent lawsuit is allowed to go the distance, then anything like a smartphone - made of 100s of complex, interconnected systems requiring expert implementation - will end up costing $10k...

I wish there was some way that the court system could feed back overbroad patents et al to the patent office in a way which promoted change.

Also, why can a Judge dictate what claims parties are allowed to make?

Because they are the judge? I mean, this might seem arbitrary, but think of the broad picture of what you asked. If judge's couldn't dictate what a valid claim is, then you can't process claims in court.

I would like to see Samsung say to Apple "You enjoying these lawsuits? Be sure to enjoy those lack of components for your products while your at it." Hey, I can dream.

I keep hearing this from people. You understand than Samsung isn't gifting these components to Apple, right? Samsung is a business and they are selling these components. If they stop, they will be losing a huge customer.

Koh]"As this case as it is currently framed, I'm refusing to go forward," Koh said.[/quote]

[quote="slogger wrote:

Also, why can a Judge dictate what claims parties are allowed to make?

That's a pretty good question. I'm quite sure that Apple will bring up that very issue in the appellate courts. If they're lucky, they'll convince the appellate court to overrule Koh on that issue before the iPhone 5 case concludes in Koh's courtroom, forcing Koh to reevaluate her approach to these cases.

On the other hand, if we (the consumers) are lucky, one side or the other will have such a resounding victory as to make all the rest of these discussions moot, so that we can get on with our damned lives. I've never once hidden the fact that I'm an Apple fan, and (generally) believe that they have the better position in all of this patent litigation -- but frankly, I don't think it matters in the least whether Apple or Samsung wins in the courtrooms... so long as the two companies can get back to spending their time and money on stuff that actually matters.

“Apple failed to get an injunction kicking Samsung products off the market, or any extra damages.”

Ironically, part of the obstacle to Apple getting an injunction was that this judge found that the infringements by Samsung (as found by jury) were of too minor concern — wouldn't have swayed a buyer's decisions — and so unworthy of injunction, despite being valid, infringed patents.

So after telling Apple (and Samsung) in the first trial to limit their patents to a “triable” number, she deemed that number insufficient to give Apple what it sought, and they're back at it again. Probably will be, as long as Samsung continues to market phones with IP that Apple believes is “stolen.”

I'll note also that part of her logic was that triple damages shouldn't apply because Samsung, while knowingly copying some IP, believed that they could win in court. Under such logic, any willful copyright and/or patent infringer merely needs to document that their in-house counsel advised them that they could beat any charges. For a company to be found guilty of intentional infringement penalties, it would have to have an utterly incompetent counsel.

Whatever your opinion about patents and copyrights, sand in the gears of our legal system from such abrupt breaks with other precedents seems like a Bad Idea, likely to lead to MORE disputation, not less.

Can Samsung introduce the evidence that was left out of the previous trail by the judge for being past the deadline for the appeal?

That evidence was specific to the patents being argued in the previous case. I'm sure they don't apply to this new case.

Sorry I needed more specific. I meant on the appeal from the previous case not the new case.

Oh. In that case, the answer is probably yes... but IANAL, and could easily be wrong. It seems to me that part of the difficulty in bringing up such things in appeals, though, would be that the appeals court risks making their fellow judge look like a fool for excluding the evidence in the first place, if they give it serious consideration. Just as others have mentioned the "good-ol-boy-club" mentality between judges and lawyers, I'm sure that applies to a certain degree between different judges as well.

Why in the world she hasn't tossed the last case right out of court with this one following it I'll never know. She's way too tolerant of legal frivolity.

The entirety of the dispute is over Apple wanting to have free run of the playground without tolerance for interlopers using their jungle gym.

The first Apple-v-Samsung trial found that Samsung harmed Apple illegally, to the tune of roughly $1 billion. Apparently, perfectly in accord with US law.

If somebody harms my interests by a billion dollars, that's not frivolous. In no world I can imagine is a billion dollars of harm “frivolous.”

You might disagree with US law, or you might think Samsung's counsel totally blew the case, or you might think that the jury violently screwed up in their finding that Samsung illegally incorporated Apple IP into their products.

Does Tim Cook have control over his own company or was he just feeding the media a bunch of BS when he said he didn't want to sue Samsung?

I don't like to have to pay taxes each April, but I do it because it's the right thing for my family and my country.

I'm sure Cook would've been thrilled had Samsung simply said, “oh, NOW we get it! No problem! Please send future notices about patent infringement in triplicate so we can distribute them more easily!”

Don't get confused by media comments. CNN made major ratings gains by its 24x7 coverage of the shitcruise story; the masses want pieties, scandals and T&A. The Cook interview should be seen as pablum for a pablum-loving audience.

All of these patent lawsuits/patent trolls have become one huge ass whip.

Where were you in the 90's, when all these patent lawsuits started in mobile phones, with Motorola actually preventing firms from offering GSM phones?

Where were you in 2007, when they really picked up, because Nokia, RIM, Motorola and others didn't want Apple in their little club?

You can't be that young. If you think things have gotten worse only since Google started claiming that IP was bullshit (and before they started counter-flinging it), you have a very small window of attention, and shouldn't be saying things have gotten worse.

Koh]"As this case as it is currently framed, I'm refusing to go forward," Koh said.[/quote]

[quote="slogger wrote:

Also, why can a Judge dictate what claims parties are allowed to make?

That's a pretty good question. I'm quite sure that Apple will bring up that very issue in the appellate courts. If they're lucky, they'll convince the appellate court to overrule Koh on that issue before the iPhone 5 case concludes in Koh's courtroom, forcing Koh to reevaluate her approach to these cases.

On the other hand, if we (the consumers) are lucky, one side or the other will have such a resounding victory as to make all the rest of these discussions moot, so that we can get on with our damned lives. I've never once hidden the fact that I'm an Apple fan, and (generally) believe that they have the better position in all of this patent litigation -- but frankly, I don't think it matters in the least whether Apple or Samsung wins in the courtrooms... so long as the two companies can get back to spending their time and money on stuff that actually matters.

Because narrowing of claims is the normal procedure to reduce the legal proceedings. It's a normal procedure that nobody has complained about.(See Oracle vs Google)

Also, why can a Judge dictate what claims parties are allowed to make?

Because that's what judges do. If judges didn't do that, wealthy companies would add so many claims that the case would take 10 years to finish. There are due process limits on how much a judge can restrict a case, but it doesn't seem like restricting them to 25 claims would violate due process.